reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The member from Spadina, Fort York, addressed the prime minister regarding national security and the upcoming Hogue Commission report on foreign interference. He questioned the prime minister's ability to work alongside ministers who may not be serving Canada's interests, implying that at least one minister could be compromised. In response, the prime minister criticized the member's comments as disgraceful and irreverent, emphasizing the seriousness of national security issues. He pointed out that the member's alignment with the Conservative Party is concerning, as their leader lacks the necessary clearance for briefings essential to keeping Canadians safe.

In question period, the leader of the opposition used the word "crazy" to criticize one of our cabinet ministers, specifically the environment minister.

Speaker 1 accuses a congressman of physical assault for speaking out against Israel's actions. She filed a complaint with Capitol Police, stating they are fighting against violence and suppression. They aim to stop funding Israel with taxpayer money.

A protester disrupted an event, with the speaker identifying them as a "code pink lunatic" who believes that funding Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. The speaker claimed that Code Pink is funded by communist China.

The events on Friday were unacceptable and embarrassing to the House and Canadians. The speaker should listen to members and step down. Translation: What happened on Friday was not okay and brought shame to the House and Canadians. The speaker should heed the members' calls and resign.

Speaker 0 states they 100% support Hamas for not accepting the ceasefire, because they do not want a situation where they can be bombarded again in the future. Speaker 2 says that innocent people are being killed and no one is taking their side, and that they are ashamed to be Canadian and to be in Canada. Speaker 1 says that Canada affords people the privilege of peaceful protest without fear of attack, where they can wear and say what they want, and suggests that if Speaker 2 is ashamed to be Canadian, they should leave. Speaker 1 calls this the side of the peace movement that other networks won't show.

The exchange centers on content posted online to the Department of State of Canada and the implications of that content. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about what she posted and asks for a screenshot to verify the online statements. Speaker 1 asserts that she referred to someone as “a Zionist scumbag” and says “he's not my prime minister,” adding, “But really, you're gonna come to my door and you're worried that I'm going to do something.” Speaker 0 notes that there were “threats” and explains the purpose of the visit: to address such threats, which could lead to consequences if continued. Speaker 1 responds that the focus should be on “actual real crime” rather than harassing her over online remarks, and argues that the visit is a waste of tax dollars. Speaker 0 warns that if the behavior continues, there could be an arrest and charge, stating, “if you made some threats that are concerning… you could be arrested and charged.” Speaker 1 demands to see what she allegedly said, asking, “Show me what I said,” and accuses the interaction of harassment and harassment for expressing dissent about the prime minister. The dialogue touches on the nature of the statements. Speaker 1 repeats hostility toward the prime minister and labels the act as “harassing people for what they say online because I don't like our stupid prime minister, and he's a Zionist sunbag,” while Speaker 0 reiterates the right to express opinion but cautions against threats. The conversation escalates with Speaker 1 calling the environment “Communist Canada” and questioning the officers’ pride in their work, challenging, “How do you like working for that?… Do you go back home and look at your family in the mirror and say, this is what you do for a living?” Speaker 0 emphasizes the possibility of documenting the behavior and filing a report if the conduct continues, with a vague reference to “the Trump Blah blah blah blah blah.” Speaker 1 maintains, “I will say whatever the fuck I want about our prime minister. You can't stop my speech. Sorry. Opinion. Yeah. Exactly.” The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 stating, “Okay. Have a nice day. Goodbye now,” and Speaker 0 reiterating the threat assessment: “Be threatening. That's all I'm asking you.”

Tens of thousands of people have been protesting in London, following the recent attack on Jewish people. They are chanting for the erasure of Israel, which I consider to be hate marches. The police and Crown Prosecution Service are independent, so I won't comment on their specific decisions. However, the police are concerned about bad actors operating beneath the criminal threshold. If necessary, I will change the law, as we did with the oil protests. I won't comment on whether the chant is anti-Semitic or if people should be arrested for it. But I believe the police should have a zero tolerance approach to antisemitism.

In the House of Commons, the speaker apologized for honoring a Ukrainian veteran who was later revealed to have fought for the Nazis in World War 2. The speaker should step down, and the prime minister's office should explain their involvement. People quickly found out about the incident online. This is unacceptable and insulting, especially on the eve of Yom Kippur. The Liberal Party will lose support if this continues. It was lazy and put many people in a bad spot, including Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Sincere apologies and action are needed to address this international embarrassment.

Conservative party members stand with Canadians needing to get back to work, not those waving swastikas or the confederate flag. Elite protests must end.

Earlier this year, there was Nazi imagery in our nation's capital, which was disturbing for the Jewish community and Canadians. Antisemitism is increasing online and in person, and must be addressed.

Mr. Brown delivers antisemitic remarks, telling the chair that the Jews, Israel, and the Jewish diaspora are “the gun,” the perpetrator, and that Madam Callus is “the silencer at the end of the gun barrel,” accusing her of silencing the truth. The chair, Madam Callus, rebukes him, stating on behalf of the committee that his antisemitic remarks are rejected and that he will not repeat them in the committee. She asks him to elaborate to the high representative. Mr. Brown persists, and Madam Callus interrupts, stating that Brown does not have the floor and telling him to shut up, as she addresses the matter to proceed.

Friday's events were unacceptable and embarrassing to the House and Canadians. The speaker should listen to members and step down.

It's upsetting that this happened. The speaker apologized, but it's embarrassing for Canada and Canadians. We need to support Jewish MPs and the Jewish community on Yom Kippur. We must fight Russian propaganda, stand with Ukraine against Russia's illegal war.

The speaker addresses the issue of being labeled as antisemitic and shares that the ADL called them an antisemite. They mention that three Israelis they have spoken to don't see a problem with what they said. The speaker clarifies their definition of antisemitism as hating someone based on their Jewish identity, and they express respect for a Jewish person they have collaborated with. They argue that the label of antisemitism is used to silence dissent and give examples of how the ADL has broadened the term. The speaker also mentions their personal experience of being banned from Twitter and accuses the ADL of interfering in democratic processes in Europe. Another speaker adds that they support the right to criticize any group and shares their negative experience with the ADL.

Speaker 0 states this is the most important election in most of their lifetimes. They claim Trump has made unacceptable threats against the economy, workers, and sovereignty. They believe a particular leader can address these issues and needs support. Speaker 1 accuses Catherine McKenna of losing track of 20,000 contracts worth $236,000,000,000, which they claim is why she is no longer in parliament. Speaker 1 repeats the accusation and insults Speaker 0. Speaker 1 continues to harass Catherine, repeating the $236,000,000,000 figure and using abusive language. Speaker 1 then states that everyone is "fucking retarded."

Canada is committed to defending freedom of expression, conscience, and peaceful protest. We also stand against violence and hatred. It's crucial to remember that the actions of a few individuals do not reflect the entire community or Canada as a whole.

I'm being called a fascist for wanting to stop the war in Ukraine today. I'm against the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and I'm looking for peace, not war. I didn't come here to be aggressive, but a member of parliament started screaming at me for asking a question, which is all on video. I'm just showing what's happening and exposing Charlie Angus for who he is: a member of parliament who screams and swears at Canadian citizens. He slanders people and wants to revoke citizenship of those he disagrees with, yet he calls me a fascist. This group surrounded and shouted me down for simply asking a question. Who are the real fascists here? I have it all on video.

I tested positive for COVID-19, but I feel well with no symptoms. I urge Canadians to get vaccinated. Regarding the recent protests in our capital city, freedom of expression is important, but Nazi symbolism, racism, and disrespecting war memorials are not acceptable. Hate is never the answer. Canadians were shocked by the behavior of some protesters. We won't be intimidated by insults or abuse towards small business workers or stealing from the homeless. We won't tolerate racist flags, vandalism, or dishonoring our veterans. Politicians exploiting fears should consider the consequences of their actions. I thank the truckers who have been vaccinated and continue to work hard to keep our economy moving.

Jonathan (Speaker 0) and Michael (Speaker 2) along with Jonathan Conricus (Speaker 1) discuss the Australia Hanukkah attack, antisemitism, and the political context surrounding Palestinian statehood and Islamist extremism. They also touch on free speech, protests, and potential international implications. - Jonathan’s initial reaction to the Australian shooting: He was not surprised, framing it as part of a broader pattern he terms “globalize the Intifada.” He cites experiences in Australia, including Bondi Beach visits and conversations with the Jewish community, who he says feel betrayed by legislators and exposed by law enforcement. He argues the atmosphere in Australia has allowed antisemitic attacks, with radicals allowed to shout antisemitic slogans and attack synagogues. He accuses the Australian government of being weak and cowed, quick to side with Hamas and Palestinians while demonizing Israel, and contends this climate enabled violence against 2,000 Australian Jews celebrating Hanukkah. He calls for full support and protection for Jews in Australia and for leadership to change its stance toward global affairs. - Netanyahu connection and limiting principle: Michael notes Netanyahu’s August letter to Australian Prime Minister Albanese warning that support for a Palestinian state fuels antisemitic violence and benefits Hamas. Conricus is asked about a limiting principle: could endorsing Palestinian statehood by various figures (Ehud Barak, the UN Security Council’s Oslo-era blueprint, etc.) be linked to such attacks, potentially implicating many figures including Donald Trump? Conricus responds that the situation in Australia goes beyond a mere recognition of a Palestinian state and highlights the disquiet in Israel across political spectrum about linking Israel’s actions to global support for Palestinian statehood, especially after October 7 atrocities. - Protests and incitement: Jonathan argues the protests in Australia, including chants like “gas the Jews,” reflect incitement and a broader systemic failure by authorities who allowed Hamas supporters to dominate public spaces and harass Jews. He recounts encounters with Hamas supporters in Melbourne and claims police and local government enabled harassment against Jews, including demands Jews remove kippahs to avoid incitement. He says hate crimes against synagogues have gone unsolved and that this atmosphere of violence and antisemitism needs to change. - Pro-Palestinian vs pro-Hamas distinction: Michael asks where to draw the line between pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas protesters. Conricus argues the distinction is artificial and notes that polls show Hamas is the most popular Palestinian political group, suggesting that many demonstrators imply support for Hamas even if they do not explicitly say so. He believes the dominant sentiment among protesters on October 7-8 was supportive of Hamas, even if framed as pro-Palestinian nationalism. He also mentions paid protesters, particularly in US/UK campus contexts, but emphasizes ideologically driven protesters. - Free speech and incitement: Michael insists that if protests include chants and actions that incite violence, this becomes a free-speech issue, citing First Amendment protections in the US and contrasting with other countries. Jonathan counters that incitement can justify restriction when it explicitly calls for violence against a protected group, noting that “gas the Jews” crosses lines beyond free speech, and criticizes Australian authorities’ tolerance of violent incitement. - Chronology and retaliation: The participants discuss the October 7 Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent response. Jonathan clarifies that Hamas conducted an unprecedented, unprovoked attack killing 1,200 Israelis, with later identification of missing and abducted individuals. He describes Israel’s border closure and subsequent major offensive in Gaza. Michael points out debates around whether attackers’ motives included broader geopolitical narratives, while Jonathan underscores the gravity and scale of the October 7 killings and the need to acknowledge the initial atrocity. - Islam and Western integration: Jonathan addresses Islam as a monotheistic faith with nearly 2 billion followers, expressing no issue with Islam as a religion but concern about Islamist ideology and an imperialistic mindset. He cites Sweden’s immigration policy as an example of perceived societal strain and argues for cautions about cultural integration, border policies, and governance standards in Western societies. - Acknowledgment of individual bravery: They remark on Ahmed Ben Ahmed, a Muslim shop owner who helped defend Jews during the Australian attack, acknowledging his bravery and suggesting he should be recognized for valor. - Iran, Israel, and alleged blame: The discussion covers claims about Iran or Israel behind the attack. Michael asserts there is no evidence linking Mossad or Iran to the attack, while Jonathan suggests Iranian involvement is possible but not proven, noting Iranian propaganda and the potential for blowback, while maintaining that the attackers’ exact affiliations remain unclear. They note Iranian condemnation of the attacks, with skepticism about Iranian statements.

The speaker was asked if they believed students protesting were motivated by anti-Semitism or horror at the Gaza slaughter. The speaker dismissed the idea of students being driven by horror and refused to continue the conversation if it was being recorded.

Speaker 0 questions Nicole about online posts to the Prime Minister of Canada, asking if she has anything to say about that. Speaker 1 asks for specifics: what post, what she specifically said, and whether there is a screenshot. Speaker 0 cites that she online said something specific and asks for clarification. Speaker 1 replies that she said, "he's a Zionist scumbag, and he's not my prime minister," adding that she believes she is not spoken to properly and questions whether she looks like a threat. Speaker 0 explains that they came to talk because those threats were made. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying that the officers should be busy addressing real crime rather than harassing her over things she says online, and questions whether she seriously looks like a threat. Speaker 0 acknowledges and continues. Speaker 1 accuses the officers of wasting tax dollars and asserts that they should not be harassing her for what she says online because she dislikes the prime minister. Speaker 0 states Nicole should be aware that if such behavior continues, there will be consequences, implying potential arrest for threats. Speaker 1 asks what kind of threats they are referring to and demands to see what she said, noting that she still has not been shown. Speaker 0 attempts to explain what she said and what constitutes threats, warning that if those threats continue, she could be arrested and charged. Speaker 1 complains about being interrupted, asking to show what she said, and then launches into a hostile remark, calling the situation Communist Canada and asking how the officers can take pride in their work. Speaker 0 reiterates that she may have her opinion, but she insists she cannot say what she says. Speaker 1 refuses to discuss further, telling them not to touch her door. Speaker 0 says a report will be filed, stating that the search behavior continues, and mentions Trump in a dismissive way ("the Trump blah blah blah blah blah"). Speaker 1 asserts she will say whatever she wants about the prime minister and that they cannot control her speech, calling it just words. Speaker 0 responds that they are asking for non-threatening language. Speaker 1 concludes by stating they will continue to speak freely and that the conversation is over, wishing them a nice day and goodbye.

Speaker 0 accuses the prime minister of bullying senators and lying about the independence of the senate. Speaker 1 interrupts, asking Speaker 0 to retract a word. Speaker 0 refuses and Speaker 1 asks them to apologize. Speaker 0 again refuses. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 to leave, and they eventually comply.

The minister accused of painting Canadians as Nazis refuses to apologize for a vetted Nazi. The descendant of Holocaust survivors criticizes the distortion of history. The government house leader deflects blame, stating the speaker invited the individual and took responsibility. The speaker resigned, which was deemed honorable and necessary.

A woman asked a congresswoman if she would condemn the Hamas flag being flown outside the White House during a free Palestine protest last week. The congresswoman responded, "What are you talking about?" and "That sounds ridiculous." The woman then asked again if the congresswoman would like to condemn it.